Appeal No. 2005-0765 3
Application No. 09/844,989
OPINION
The following comprises our findings of fact with respect to the scope and
content of the prior art and the differences between the prior art and the claimed subject
matter. Stuff discloses a putter head comprising a putter body with a toe end 78, a heel
end 80, and a face surface 72. A non-metallic insert 73 is disposed in at least a portion
of the face surface. Stuff further discloses that several means such as resilient inserts
and non-parallel grooves, can be utilized together to impart corrective action to a golf
ball when struck. See col. 3, lines 55-58. Stuff does not disclose varying the loft angle
of the face surface from a positive loft angle to a negative loft angle as said face surface
extends from the heel end to the toe end.
Turner discloses a putter that has a compound face surface to compensate for
hits outside the sweet spot. The loft of the face surface varies from a closed toe area
with a greater loft to an open heel area with a lesser loft in the Figure 6 embodiment.
The transition in loft angles does not appear to be smooth. However, Turner teaches
varying the loft on the club face for the same reason that Stuff provides non-parallel
grooves, to modify the behavior of a golf ball when struck outside the sweet spot. Turner
does not disclose a resilient insert.
MacKeil also shows a golf club, this time with a constantly changing loft angle.
MacKeil indicates that this teaching is not applicable to a putter. We further note that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007